DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending in the application. Claim 4 was previously canceled. Claims 1-2 were amended and support can be found in the Specification as originally filed.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Recurring units RPA1 and RPA3 of Claim 16 comprise R1 which is undefined in the claim language. For purposes of examination, R1 will be interpreted to mean –(CH2)-m where m is from 5 to 10 as supported in the instant Specification [Page 10, Line 1]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, 5-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelot (US 2020/0024395 A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 11/04/2022; hereafter as “Capelot”) in view of Norfolk et al. (US 2014/0127440 A1; hereafter as “Norfolk”) .
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-7, Capelot teaches a composition for a thermoplastic material for electrical equipment [Claims 1, 25], corresponding to an electrical or electronic article comprising a polymer composition of Claim 1, comprising:
30-100 wt. % Semi-crystalline polyamide polymer corresponding to the semicrystalline polyamide of Claim 1 [Claim 1], and corresponding to wherein the polyamide concentration is from 20 wt. % to 85 wt. % of Claim 6;
Wherein the polyamide is derived from a polycondensation reaction [Claims 15-16; ¶ 0115], corresponding to the polyamide is derived from the polycondensation of monomers of Claim 1;
20 – 60 wt. % of reinforcing fibers such as Glass fibers [Table 1; ¶ 0077], corresponding to the glass fiber of Claim 1, corresponding to wherein the glass fiber concentration is from 10 wt. % to 70 wt. % of Claim 7;
0.9 to 30 mol % of a linear aliphatic diamine such as 1,6-hexanediamine [Claim 1; ¶ 0121], which overlaps 20 mol % to 95 mol % of a C5 to C9 aliphatic diamine of Claim 1, and reads on the 1,6-diaminohexane of Claim 2;
70 to 99.1 mol % 1,3-bis(aminomethylcyclohexyl) [Claim 1], which overlaps 5 mol % to 80 mol % of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane of Claim 1, and reads on the 1,3-bis(aminomethylcyclohexyl) of Claims 3, 5 ;
terephthalic acid [Claim 1];
Up to 30 mol % cyclohexane-1,4-dicarboxylic acid [¶ 0126-0127], corresponding to 1 mol % to 50 mol % of 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid of Claim 1; and
the enthalpy of crystallization of the semi-crystalline polyamide is greater than 40 J/g [¶0143], which reads on the claimed range of at least 30 J/g of Claim 1.
However, Capelot does not explicitly teach 20 mol % to 95 mol % of a C5 to C9 aliphatic diamine of Claim 1; 5 mol % to 80 mol % of bis(aminoacyl)cyclohexane of Claim 1; and 50 mol % to 99 mol % of terephthalic acid of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Capelot for the amount of 1,3-bis(aminomethylcyclohexyl) (70 to 99.1 mol %) and the amount and carbon length of aliphatic diamine (0.9 to 30 mol % of a C9 to C18 diamine) and overlaps the instantly claimed ranges (5 mol % to 80 mol % of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane, and 20 mol % to 95 mol % of a C5 to C9 aliphatic diamine, respectively) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the amount of terephthalic acid of Claim 1, Norfolk teaches a mobile electronic device that comprises a polymer composition [Claim 1], comprising 25-85 mol % terephthalic acid [¶ 0043], corresponding to 50 mol % to 99 mol % of terephthalic acid of Claim 1.
Norfolk offers the motivation that excellent results were obtained when using terephthalic acid [¶ 0041].
Capelot and Norfolk are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of polymer compositions comprising semi-crystalline polyamide, glass fiber, aliphatic diamine, bis(aminoacyl)cyclohexane, terephthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid [Example 1; Claims 1, 4-6, 7, 10].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the amount of terephthalic acid of Norfolk with the composition of Capelot, with the motivation to obtain excellent results, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 10-11, and 20, Capelot does not explicitly teach a Comparative Tracking Index ("CTI") of at least 750 V after heat aging for 2,800 hours as measured according to ASTM D3638 of Claim 10, wherein the electrical or electronic article is exposed to air at a temperature of 120˚C of Claim 11, and wherein the electrical or electronic article is exposed to air at a temperature of 150˚C of Claim 20.
Nevertheless, the properties of the electrical or electronic article, such as the Comparative Tracking Index, and ability to withstand high temperatures are functions of its physical and chemical composition, and are strongly influenced by the composition’s crystallinity. Since Capelot in view of Norfolk teaches the same composition with the same semi-crystalline structure formed by the same method as required by the instant claim, as set forth in the rejection above, the article of Capelot in view of Norfolk would be expected to result in the same Comparative Tracking Index, and ability to withstand high temperatures as required by the instant claims. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that the melting temperature is directly related to a material’s crystallinity. In this case, the glass melting temperature (Tm of from 290˚C to 340˚C) [Claim 2] of Capelot corresponds to the melting temperature (Tm of at least 295˚C) of the claimed invention as described in the instant Specification [Page 4, Lines 21-22] which further supports the crystallinity of Capelot in view of Norfolk would be expected to correspond the claimed semi-crystalline structure. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed electrical or electronic article properties, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (polyamide and glass fibers) for the same utility (making a polymer composition) and for the same purpose (of producing an electrical or electronic article).
Regarding Claims 8-9, 15, 17-18, Capelot further teaches:
Halogen-free flame retardant [¶ 0109], corresponding to the halogen free flame retardant of Claim 8;
Zinc oxide [¶ 0109], corresponding to the acid scavenger of Claim 9;
an extrusion step [¶ 0231; Claim 15], corresponding to extruding the polymer composition of Claim 15;
A glass transition temperature Tg > 150˚C [¶ 0140], thereby reading on wherein the polyamide has a Tg of at least 145 ˚C of Claims 17-18.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Capelot does not explicitly teach the components of Claim 12, or the melt-blending of Claim 19.
Nevertheless, Norfolk teaches:
A circuit board [Claim 15], thereby reading on the integrated circuit of Claim 12;
Blending and melting of the components in the polymer composition [¶ 0096], corresponding to melt-blending the polyamide and the other components of Claim 19.
Norfolk offers the motivation that the melting and blending of all raw materials may be simultaneous fed into an extruder and melted and kneaded together in one step [¶ 0096]. Norfolk also offers the motivation that the polymer composition has excellent adhesion when used to coat electronic components [¶ 0099-0104].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circuit board and blending and melting step of Norfolk with the composition of Capelot, with the motivation to more quickly produce a polymer composition with excellent adhesion, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, Capelot further teaches:
Reactive polyamide prepolymers [Claim 1], corresponding to the recurring units of Claim 16, comprising:
BACT/XT copolyamide [Claim 1], wherein:
embodiment #1of XT is an amide motif at a molar content ranging from 0.9 to 30% where X is a C9 to C18 linear aliphatic diamine, and where T is terephthalic acid [Claim 1], corresponding to RPA1 of Claim 16;
embodiment #2 of BACT is an amide motif at a molar content ranging from 70 to 99.1% where BAC is 1,3-bis(aminomethypcyclohexyl) and where T is terephthalic acid [Claim 1], corresponding to RPA2 of Claim 16;
embodiment #3 of XT is an amide motif at a molar content of up to 30 mol % where X is a C6 to C36 linear aliphatic diamine, and where T is C6 to C36 cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid [Claim 1], corresponding to RPA3 of Claim 16;
embodiment of #4 BACT is an amide motif at a molar content of up to 30 mol % where X is a C4 to C36 diamine, and where T is C6 to C36 cycloaliphatic dicarboxylic acid [Claim 1], corresponding to RPA4 of Claim 16;
C9 to C18 linear aliphatic diamine [Claim 1] overlaps with wherein R1 of RPA1 to RPA3 is –(CH2)-m where m is 5 to 10 of Claim 16;
70.9 to 100 mol % of the recurring units in the polyamide consist of BACT/XT (min. total of embodiments #1-4 = 0.9 + 70 + 0 + 0 = 70.9 mol %; max. total of embodiments #1-4 = 30 + 99.1 + 30 + 30 = 100 mol %), which overlaps with recurring units RPA1 to RPA4 being at least 99 mol% of the recurring units in the polyamide of Claim 16.
However, Capelot does not explicitly teach wherein R1 of RPA1 to RPA3 is –(CH2)-m where m is 5 to 10, and recurring units RPA1 to RPA4 being at least 99 mol% of the recurring units in the polyamide of Claim 16.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Capelot for the carbon length of the aliphatic diamine (C9 to C18 linear aliphatic diamine) and total amount of recurring units (70.9 to 100 mol %) overlaps the instantly claimed ranges (C5 to C9 aliphatic diamine, and at least 99 mol %, respectively) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelot (US 2020/0024395A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 11/04/2022; hereafter as “Capelot”) in view of Norfolk et al. (US 2014/0127440 A1; hereafter as “Norfolk”) as evidenced by E-Switch ( “Electric Vehicles Require More Switches Than Ever”| E-Switch, 14 Nov. 2023; hereafter as “E-Switch”).
Capelot in view of Norfolk teach the semicrystalline polyamide, diamine, aliphatic diamine, bis(aminoacyl)cyclohexane, terephthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid of Claim 1 set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Capelot teaches the composition can be used to produce switches [¶ 0241], which E-Switch teaches are parts of electric vehicles [¶ 1], thereby reading on wherein the article is an all-electric vehicle part of Claim 13.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelot (US 2020/0024395A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 11/04/2022; hereafter as “Capelot”) in view of Norfolk et al. (US 2014/0127440 A1; hereafter as “Norfolk”) as evidenced by Power Systems Design (Off-the-Shelf and Custom In-Vehicle Smart Multimedia USB Charging Modules Reduce Overall Engineering Costs, 11 July 2017; hereafter as “PSD”).
Capelot in view of Norfolk teach the semicrystalline polyamide, diamine, aliphatic diamine, bis(aminoacyl)cyclohexane, terephthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid of Claim 1 set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Capelot teaches the composition can be used to produce multimedia systems [¶ 0241], which PSD teaches have fast chargers [¶ 1], thereby reading on the fast chargers of Claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-3, 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights